Trial of Early Minimally Invasive Removal of Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Trials of surgical evacuation of supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhages have generally shown no functional benefit. Whether early minimally invasive surgical removal would result in better outcomes than medical management is not known. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized trial involving patients with an acute intracerebral hemorrhage, we assessed surgical removal of the hematoma as compared with medical management. Patients who had a lobar or anterior basal ganglia hemorrhage with a hematoma volume of 30 to 80 ml were assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, within 24 hours after the time that they were last known to be well, to minimally invasive surgical removal of the hematoma plus guideline-based medical management (surgery group) or to guideline-based medical management alone (control group). The primary efficacy end point was the mean score on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale (range, 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, according to patients' assessment) at 180 days, with a prespecified threshold for posterior probability of superiority of 0.975 or higher. The trial included rules for adaptation of enrollment criteria on the basis of hemorrhage location. A primary safety end point was death within 30 days after enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were enrolled, of whom 30.7% had anterior basal ganglia hemorrhages and 69.3% had lobar hemorrhages. After 175 patients had been enrolled, an adaptation rule was triggered, and only persons with lobar hemorrhages were enrolled. The mean score on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale at 180 days was 0.458 in the surgery group and 0.374 in the control group (difference, 0.084; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.005 to 0.163; posterior probability of superiority of surgery, 0.981). The mean between-group difference was 0.127 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.035 to 0.219) among patients with lobar hemorrhages and -0.013 (95% Bayesian credible interval, -0.147 to 0.116) among those with anterior basal ganglia hemorrhages. The percentage of patients who had died by 30 days was 9.3% in the surgery group and 18.0% in the control group. Five patients (3.3%) in the surgery group had postoperative rebleeding and neurologic deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in whom surgery could be performed within 24 hours after an acute intracerebral hemorrhage, minimally invasive hematoma evacuation resulted in better functional outcomes at 180 days than those with guideline-based medical management. The effect of surgery appeared to be attributable to intervention for lobar hemorrhages. (Funded by Nico; ENRICH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02880878.).

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Design and Statistical Innovations in a Platform Trial for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

Platform trials allow efficient evaluation of multiple interventions for a specific disease. The HEALEY ALS Platform Trial is testing multiple investigational products in parallel and sequentially in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) with the goal of rapidly identifying novel treatments to slow disease progression. Platform trials have considerable operational and statistical efficiencies compared with typical randomized controlled trials due to their use of shared infrastructure and shared control data. We describe the statistical approaches required to achieve the objectives of a platform trial in the context of ALS. This includes following regulatory guidance for the disease area of interest and accounting for potential differences in outcomes of participants within the shared control (potentially due to differences in time of randomization, mode of administration, and eligibility criteria). Within the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, the complex statistical objectives are met using a Bayesian shared parameter analysis of function and survival. This analysis serves to provide a common integrated estimate of treatment benefit, overall slowing in disease progression, as measured by function and survival while accounting for potential differences in the shared control group using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Clinical trial simulation is used to provide a better understanding of this novel analysis method and complex design. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:547-560.

Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021. Interventions: Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Results: Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

Adaptive Platform Trials to Transform Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Therapy Development.

Current therapeutic development in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) relies on individual randomized clinical trials to test a specific investigational product in a single patient population. This approach has intrinsic limitations, including cost, time, and lack of flexibility. Adaptive platform trials represent a novel approach to investigate several interventions for a single disease in a continuous manner. Already in use in oncology, this approach is now being employed more often in neurology. Here, we describe a newly launched platform trial for ALS. The Healey ALS Platform Trial is testing multiple investigational products concurrently in people with ALS, with the goal of rapidly identifying novel treatments, biomarkers, and trial endpoints. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:165-175.

Inhaled Budesonide for COVID-19 in People at Higher Risk of Complications in the Community: The UK National Community Randomi.

Background The effectiveness of repurposed treatments with supportive evidence for higher risk individuals with COVID-19 in the community is unknown. In the UK PRINCIPLE national platform trial we aimed to determine whether 're-purposed medicines' (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, colchicine, inhaled budesonide, and other interventions) reduced time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people at higher risk of COVID-19 complications in the community. We mainly report the findings for budesonide arm here. Methods Participants in this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial were aged ≥65, or ≥50 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Funded by United Kingdom Research Innovation (MC_PC_19079). Findings The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with the first 4 intervention arms stopped on futility grounds. Randomisation to the budesonide arm occurred from November 27, 2020 until March 31, 2021, when the pre-specified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to budesonide (n=787), usual care (n=1069), and other treatments (n=674). Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group versus usual care (hazard ratio 1·21 [95% credible interval 1·08 to 1·36], probability of superiority >O·999, estimated benefit 2·94 [95% credible interval 1·19 to 5·12] days). An estimated 6·8% COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the budesonide group versus 8·8% in usual care (estimated absolute difference, 2·0% [95% credible interval -0.2% to 4.5%], probability of superiority 0.963). In the main secondary analysis of admissions using only concurrent controls, admissions occurred in 6.6% (3.8 to 10.1%) in the budesonide group versus 8.8% (95% CI 5.2 to 13.1%), with an absolute difference of 2.2% (0.0 to 4.9%) and a hazard ratio of 0.73 (0.53 to 1.00), meeting the pre-specified superiority probability of 0.975. Three serious adverse events occurred in the budesonide group and three in usual care.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Bayesian model of disease progression in mucopolysaccaridosis IIIA.

Mucopolysaccaridosis IIIA (MPS IIIA) is a rare genetic disease that afflicts children and leads to neurocognitive degeneration. We develop a Bayesian disease progression model (DPM) of MPS IIIA that characterizes the pattern of cognitive growth and decline in this disease. The DPM is a repeated measures model that incorporates a nonlinear developmental trajectory and shape-invariant random effects. This approach quantifies the pattern of cognitive development in MPS IIIA and addresses differences in biological age, length of follow-up, and clinical outcomes across natural history subjects. The DPM can be used in clinical trials to estimate the percent slowing in disease progression for treatment relative to natural history. Simulations demonstrate that the DPM provides substantial improvements in power relative to alternative analyses.

The Bayesian Time Machine: Accounting for temporal drift in multi-arm platform trials.

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm platform trials investigate multiple agents simultaneously, typically with staggered entry and exit of experimental treatment arms versus a shared control arm. In such settings, there is considerable debate whether to limit analyses for a treatment arm to concurrent randomized control subjects or to allow comparisons to both concurrent and non-concurrent (pooled) control subjects. The potential bias from temporal drift over time is at the core of this debate. METHODS: We propose time-adjusted analyses, including a "Bayesian Time Machine," to model potential temporal drift in the entire study population, such that primary analyses can incorporate all randomized control subjects from the platform trial. We conduct a simulation study to assess performance relative to utilizing concurrent or pooled controls. RESULTS: In multi-arm platform trials with staggered entry, analyses adjusting for temporal drift (either Bayesian or frequentist) have superior estimation of treatment effects and favorable testing properties compared to analyses using either concurrent or pooled controls. The Bayesian Time Machine generally provides estimates with greater precision and smaller mean square error than alternative approaches, at the risk of small bias and small Type I error inflation. CONCLUSIONS: The Bayesian Time Machine provides a compromise between bias and precision by smoothing estimates across time and leveraging all available data for the estimation of treatment effects. Prior distributions controlling the behavior of dynamic smoothing across time must be pre-specified and carefully calibrated to the unique context of each trial, appropriately accounting for the population, disease, and endpoints.

An adaptive clinical trial design to identify the target dose of tenecteplase for treatment of acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Fibrinolytic therapy with tenecteplase has been proposed for patients with pulmonary embolism but the optimal dose is unknown. Higher-than-necessary dosing is likely to cause excess bleeding. We designed an adaptive clinical trial to identify the minimum and assumed safest dose of tenecteplase that maintains efficacy. METHODS: We propose a Bayesian adaptive, placebo-controlled, group-sequential dose-finding trial using response-adaptive randomization to preferentially allocate subjects to the most promising doses, dual analyses strategies (continuous and dichotomized) using a gatekeeping approach to maximize clinical impact, and interim stopping rules to efficiently address competing trial objectives. The operating characteristics of the proposed design were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation across multiple hypothetical efficacy scenarios. RESULTS: Simulation demonstrated response-adaptive randomization can preferentially allocate subjects to doses which appear to be performing well based on interim data. Interim decision-making, including the interim evaluation of both analysis strategies with gatekeeping, allows the trial to continue enrollment when success with the dichotomized analysis strategy appears sufficiently likely and to stop enrollment and declare superiority based on the continuous analysis strategy when there is little chance of ultimately declaring superiority with the dichotomized analysis. CONCLUSION: The proposed design allows evaluation of a greater number of dose levels than would be possible with a non-adaptive design and avoids the need to choose either the continuous or the dichotomized analysis strategy for the primary endpoint.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. METHODS: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner. FUNDING: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Single-Dose Intraventricular Nimodipine Microparticles Versus Oral Nimodipine for Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

Background and Purpose- EG-1962 is a sustained release formulation of nimodipine administered via external ventricular drain in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A randomized, open-label, phase 1/2a, dose-escalation study provided impetus for this study to evaluate efficacy and safety of a single intraventricular 600 mg dose of EG-1962 to patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, compared with standard of care oral nimodipine. Methods- Subjects were World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grades 2-4, modified Fisher grades 2-4 and had an external ventricular drain inserted as part of standard of care. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects with favorable outcome at day 90 after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (extended Glasgow outcome scale 6-8). The proportion of subjects with favorable outcome at day 90 on the Montreal cognitive assessment, as well as the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia and infarction, use of rescue therapy and safety were evaluated. Results- The study was halted by the independent data monitoring board after planned interim analysis of 210 subjects (289 randomized) with day 90 outcome found the study was unlikely to achieve its primary end point. After day 90 follow-up of all subjects, the proportion with favorable outcome on the extended Glasgow outcome scale was 45% (65/144) in the EG-1962 and 42% (62/145) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.83-1.22], P=0.95). Consistent with its mechanism of action, EG-1962 significantly reduced vasospasm (50% [69/138] EG-1962 versus 63% [91/144], P=0.025) and hypotension (7% [9/138] versus 10% [14/144]). Analysis of prespecified subject strata suggested potential efficacy in World Federation of Neurological Surgeons 3-4 subjects (46% [32/69] EG-1962 versus 32% [24/75] placebo, odds ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.94-1.58], P=0.13). No safety concerns were identified that halted the study or that preclude further development. Conclusions- There was no significant increase in favorable outcome for EG-1962 compared with standard of care in the overall study population. The safety profile was acceptable. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02790632.

Therapy development for the mucopolysaccharidoses: Updated consensus recommendations for neuropsychological endpoints.

Neurological dysfunction represents a significant clinical component of many of the mucopolysaccharidoses (also known as MPS disorders). The accurate and consistent assessment of neuropsychological function is essential to gain a greater understanding of the precise natural history of these conditions and to design effective clinical trials to evaluate the impact of therapies on the brain. In 2017, an International MPS Consensus Panel published recommendations for best practice in the design and conduct of clinical studies investigating the effects of therapies on cognitive function and adaptive behavior in patients with neuronopathic mucopolysaccharidoses. Based on an International MPS Consensus Conference held in February 2020, this article provides updated consensus recommendations and expands the objectives to include approaches for assessing behavioral and social-emotional state, caregiver burden and quality of life in patients with all mucopolysaccharidoses.

Comparison of methods for control allocation in multiple arm studies using response adaptive randomization.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Response adaptive randomization has many polarizing properties in two-arm settings comparing control to a single treatment. The generalization of these features to the multiple arm setting has been less explored, and existing comparisons in the literature reach disparate conclusions. We investigate several generalizations of two-arm response adaptive randomization methods relating to control allocation in multiple arm trials, exploring how critiques of response adaptive randomization generalize to the multiple arm setting. METHODS: We perform a simulation study to investigate multiple control allocation schemes within response adaptive randomization, comparing the designs on metrics such as power, arm selection, mean square error, and the treatment of patients within the trial. RESULTS: The results indicate that the generalization of two-arm response adaptive randomization concerns is variable and depends on the form of control allocation employed. The concerns are amplified when control allocation may be reduced over the course of the trial but are mitigated in the methods considered when control allocation is maintained or increased during the trial. In our chosen example, we find minimal advantage to increasing, as opposed to maintaining, control allocation; however, this result reflects an extremely limited exploration of methods for increasing control allocation. CONCLUSION: Selection of control allocation in multiple arm response adaptive randomization has a large effect on the performance of the design. Some disparate comparisons of response adaptive randomization to alternative paradigms may be partially explained by these results. In future comparisons, control allocation for multiple arm response adaptive randomization should be chosen to keep in mind the appropriate match between control allocation in response adaptive randomization and the metric or metrics of interest.

Comparison of response adaptive randomization features in multiarm clinical trials with control.

We investigate multiple features of response adaptive randomization (RAR) in the context of a multiple arm randomized trial with control, where the primary goal is the identification of the best arm for use in a broader patient population. We maintain constant control allocation and vary the length of time until RAR is started, interim frequency, the underlying quantity used to calculate the randomization probabilities, and a threshold resulting in temporary arm dropping. We evaluate the designs on five metrics measuring benefit to the internal trial population, the future external population, and statistical estimation. Our results indicate these features have minimal interaction within the space explored, with preference for earlier activation of RAR, more frequent interim analyses, randomizing in proportion to the probability each arm is the best, and aggressive thresholding for temporarily dropping arms. The results illustrate useful principles for maximizing the benefit of RAR in practice.

Permutation and Bayesian tests for testing random effects in linear mixed-effects models.

In many applications of linear mixed-effects models to longitudinal and multilevel data especially from medical studies, it is of interest to test for the need of random effects in the model. It is known that classical tests such as the likelihood ratio, Wald, and score tests are not suitable for testing random effects because they suffer from testing on the boundary of the parameter space. Instead, permutation and bootstrap tests as well as Bayesian tests, which do not rely on the asymptotic distributions, avoid issues with the boundary of the parameter space. In this paper, we first develop a permutation test based on the likelihood ratio test statistic, which can be easily used for testing multiple random effects and any subset of them in linear mixed-effects models. The proposed permutation test would be an extension to two existing permutation tests. We then aim to compare permutation tests and Bayesian tests for random effects to find out which test is more powerful under which situation. Nothing is known about this in the literature, although this is an important practical problem due to the usefulness of both methods in tackling the challenges with testing random effects. For this, we consider a Bayesian test developed using Bayes factors, where we also propose a new alternative computation for this Bayesian test to avoid some computational issue it encounters in testing multiple random effects. Extensive simulations and a real data analysis are used for evaluation of the proposed permutation test and its comparison with the Bayesian test. We find that both tests perform well, albeit the permutation test with the likelihood ratio statistic tends to provide a relatively higher power when testing multiple random effects.

Clinical Trial Protocol: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Efficacy, and Safety Study Comparing EG-1962 to Standard of Care Oral Nimodipine in Adults with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage [NEWTON-2 (Nimodipine Microparticles to Enhance Recovery While Reducing TOxicity After SubarachNoid Hemorrhage)].

BACKGROUND: Nimodipine is the only drug approved in the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) in many countries. EG-1962, a product developed using the Precisa™ platform, is an extended-release microparticle formulation of nimodipine that can be administered intraventricularly or intracisternally. It was developed to test the hypothesis that delivering higher concentrations of extended-release nimodipine directly to the cerebrospinal fluid would provide superior efficacy compared to systemic administration. RESULTS: A Phase 1/2a multicenter, controlled, randomized, open-label, dose-escalation study determined the maximum tolerated dose and supported the safety and tolerability of EG-1962 in patients with aSAH. EG-1962, 600 mg, was selected for a pivotal, Phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group efficacy, and safety study comparing it to standard of care oral nimodipine in adults with aSAH. Key inclusion criteria are patients with a ruptured saccular aneurysm repaired by clipping or coiling, World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade 2-4, and modified Fisher score of > 1. Patients must have an external ventricular drain as part of standard of care. Patients are randomized to receive intraventricular investigational product (EG-1962 or NaCl solution) and an oral placebo or oral nimodipine in the approved dose regimen (active control) within 48 h of aSAH. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy of EG-1962 compared to oral nimodipine. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects with favorable outcome (6-8) on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale assessed 90 days after aSAH. The secondary endpoint is the proportion of subjects with favorable outcome on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 90 days after aSAH. Data on safety, rescue therapy, delayed cerebral infarction, and health economics will be collected. Trail registration NCT02790632.

Effect of Weight Extremes on Ventricular Volumes and Myocardial Strain in Repaired Tetralogy of Fallot as Measured by CMR.

Pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF-TAP) is often based on cardiac MRI (CMR) right ventricular (RV) volumes indexed to body surface area (BSA). Weight extremes result in increased patient morbidity and affect indexed measurements. We hypothesized that patients with rTOF-TAP at extremes of weight have (1) over- or underestimated indexed volumes and (2) altered parameters of cardiac function. CMRs in patients with rTOF-TAP were retrospectively reviewed; analysis included right and left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fractions (EF) and peak global LV circumferential strain (ε cc) from myocardial tagged images. Indexed volumes were recalculated using ideal BSA. Weight categories were assigned: underweight, appropriate weight, overweight, and obese. Linear regression models with weight category, spline of age, and gender were created to assess the association of weight and parameters of volume and function. When RV volumes were corrected for ideal BSA, 11 (31%) additional overweight and obese patients met published criteria for PVR and 3 (38%) underweight patients no longer met criteria. Obese and overweight patients had larger absolute LV and RV diastolic volumes, but no difference in volumes indexed to ideal BSA. Modeling demonstrated no difference in LVEF or RVEF by weight categories but significant differences in global LV ε cc. Extremes of body weight may result in inappropriate timing of PVR. Extremes of weight lead to abnormalities in global LV ε cc. Although clinical implications of abnormal ε cc are unclear, these patients may be at higher risk for early ventricular dysfunction.

Conditional Power: How Likely Is Trial Success?

This JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods article examines conditional power, calculated while a trial is ongoing and based on both the currently observed data and an assumed treatment effect for future patients.